Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lancaster Housing Authority v. Gardner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 27, 1969No. Appeal, No. 458Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

1 believe that the judgment can and should be stricken on existing state law grounds that pre-date and are unrelated to the decision in Thorpe. Thus I dissent from the majority opinion which merely remands for a hearing under Thorpe.

Appellee-authority proceeded under a lease provision which allowed confession of judgment against appellant-tenant “upon the breach of any of the covenants or Agreements of this lease or upon termination thereof by forfeiture, default or expiration. . . .” The authority’s affidavit supporting its entry of the confessed…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay ViewSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. West Penn Sand & Gravel Co. v. Shippingport Sand Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Kolf v. LiebermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Scott Factors, Inc. v. HartleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. Yezbak v. CroceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API